Richmond v. Sessions
697 F. App'x 106
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Keon Richmond falsely represented to ICE officers that he was a U.S. citizen to avoid removal proceedings.
- Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals found the misrepresentation violated INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (false claim to citizenship “for any purpose or benefit under” the INA or other law).
- Richmond previously appealed; the Second Circuit remanded for the BIA to clarify whether avoiding removal qualifies as a “purpose…under” the INA, finding the statutory language ambiguous.
- On remand the BIA held that avoiding negative legal consequences, including removal proceedings, falls within “purpose…under [the INA] … or any other Federal or State law.”
- Richmond petitioned for review of the BIA’s interpretation; the Second Circuit reviewed under Chevron deference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “purpose…under [the INA] … or any other Federal or State law” includes avoiding removal proceedings | Richmond: BIA’s inclusion of avoidance-of-removal is unreasonable and not supported by the statute | Gov’t (Sessions): BIA reasonably interpreted the phrase to include avoiding negative legal consequences, including removal | Court: BIA’s interpretation is reasonable; Chevron deference applies; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (establishes framework for judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes)
- Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2011) (discusses application of Chevron to BIA interpretations)
- Adams v. Holder, 692 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing agency interpretations under Chevron)
- Richmond v. Holder, 714 F.3d 725 (2d Cir. 2013) (Second Circuit previously found INA provision ambiguous and remanded for BIA clarification)